Seismic risk mitigation

Part of the Nato Science Series book series (NAIV, volume 32)


The irregularity and long time intervals between earthquakes are factors contributing to reduced awareness about earthquake risks among the public and government officials and hence to reduced allocation of resources for their mitigation. Moreover, it is not uncommon to see misallocation of resources by non- knowledgeable decision makers and politicians, especially when they act under fear of criticism and public opinion pressures in the aftermath of a catastrophic event. It is therefore up to scientists to help maintain an increased level of awareess about seismic hazards and also to help policy makers understand that seismic risk reduction requires continuous, long-term efforts with a multitude of activities covering all aspects of the problem.


Seismic Hazard Seismic Risk Earthquake Risk Kocaeli Earthquake Earthquake Resistant Design 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ambraseys, N. N., and Finkel, C. F., 1991. Long-term seismicity of Istanbul and of the Marmara Sea region, Terra Nova, 3, 527–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambraseys, N. N., and Jackson, J. A., 1981. Earthquake hazard and vulnerability in the Northeastern Mediterranean: the Corinth earthquake sequence of February-March, Disasters, 5, 355–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anagnostopoulos, S. A., 1996. Large scale operations for post-earthquake emergency assessment of building safety, Paper No. 967, Proceedings, 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico.Google Scholar
  4. California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council, 1977. Earthquake prediction evaluation guidelines, California Geology, 158–160 (reprinted 1983, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 73, 1955–1956.Google Scholar
  5. Council of Europe, 1991. Conclusions of the International Conference on: Earthquake Prediction: State-of-the-Art, Strasbourg, France, Oct. 1991.Google Scholar
  6. EC8, 1994. Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures, European Prestandard, CEN, Doc. CEN/TC250/SC8/N.Google Scholar
  7. Erdik, M., 1995. Istanbul earthquake scenario and master plan, in: Informal Settlements, Environmental Degradation, and Disaster Vulnerability: the Turkey Case Study, WORLD BANK, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  8. Erdik, M., 2001. Report on 1999 Kocaeli and Duzce (Turkey) earthquakes, in Structural Control for Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, Casciati, F., Magonette, G. (eds.), World Scientific.Google Scholar
  9. Erdik, M., and Aydinoglu, N., 2002. Earthquake risk to buildings in Istanbul and a proposal towards its mitigation, Proceedings of the Second Annual IIASA-DPRI Meeting: Integrated Disaster Risk Management: Megacity Vulnerability and Resilience, IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, 29–31 July 2002.Google Scholar
  10. Erdik, M., Doyuran, V., Akkas, N., and Gulkan, P., 1985. A probabilistic assessment of the seismic hazard in Turkey, Tectonophysics, 117, 295–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Erdik, M., Doyuran, V., Gulkan, P., and Akcora, G., 1983. Probabilistic assessment of the seismic intensity in Turkey for the siting of nuclear power plants, Proc, 2 nd CSNI Specialist Meeting on Probabilistic Methods in Seismic Risk Assessment for Nuclear Power Plants, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  12. EMS, 1998. European Macroseismic Scale 1998, European Seismological Commission, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  13. Le Pichon, X., Sengör, A. M. C, Demirbag, E., Rangin, C, Imren, C, Armijo, R., Görür, N., Çagatay, N., Mercier de Lepinay, B., Meyer, B., Saatçilar, R., and Tok, B., 2001. The active main Marmara fault, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 192, 595–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. National Academy of Sciences, 1975. Earthquake Prediction and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences publication, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  15. NEHRP, 1997. Recommended Provisions For Seismic Regulations For New Buildings And Other Structures (FEMA 303), Prepared by the Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.Google Scholar
  16. Papazachos, B. C., and Papazachou, C., 1989. The Earthquakes of Greece, (in Greek with English summaries), Zitis Publications, Thessaloniki.Google Scholar
  17. Parsons, T., Toda, S., Stein, R. S., Barka, A., and Dieterich, J. H., 2000. Heightened odds of large earthquakes near Istanbul: an interaction-basedprobability calculation, Science, 288, 661–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. UNDRO, 1980. Natural Disasters and Vulnerability Analysis, Report of Expert Group Meeting, Office of the United Nations Disaster Relief Co-ordinator, Geneva.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Università degli Studi di BolognaItaly
  2. 2.University of TokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations